Talk:Huw Edwards/Archive 1 - Knowledge (XXG)

464:

as it is - is that there seems something odd and wordy about how we have it at the moment. It sounds like there were two quite separate activities, BOTH of which Cuddly Huw did - (1) the Playing Of The Instrument and (2) the Demonstrating of The Stops and I somehow doubt that this is what really happened - it sounds a bit over-specified to me. Or like someone is really thinking of the organ-playing prowess of a certain fictional Librarian. It somehow gets my teeth on edge when I read its current version, However, it is probably time for me to stfu now, as I gather it is charmingly termed, and have a nice cuppa instead. I won't continue with this unless I can magically come up with a better wording - which is unlikely ... cheers

415:

the stops to be found on it." I find the bit starting "both" very difficult - I will argue this at length (and risk boring you to death) if you like but my basic point is it's clunky and overegged. If he played it then by definition he more or less demonstrated a minimum of ONE stop and probably more - the way we have it written at the moment seems to oddly isolate this one aspect. It's like saying he played the horn and also demonstrated how those funny buttons can change the note. Or something. I didn't see the programme in question so I am not sure I can fix it well (but could try!) and I'd be interested if someone else fancied a go. But YMMV and you may think it sounds fine! Thanks and best wishes

4397: 1870: 904:

principles for what triggers legal & financial liability for publicly causing harm to an individual's reputation. The easiest & most effective defence to a defamation suit is (verifiable, provable) truth - clearcut evidence that the facts underpinning the negative publicity are accurate. So if public resources & media aren't presenting you as an editor with concrete evidence of Huw's relevance to a negative subject, you're exposing yourself by creating that link in the public sphere.

3628:

resist to pass the gossip on, but cannot report the allegations in their own voice, so make heavy use of quotes and phrases like "a source told us", "a well connected colleague was told", "an insider told us", "an employee complained", etc. Then, depending on their agenda, political alliance and that of the accused, wrap it in vague and ambiguous journalese language, use loaded words to influence their readers' perception of what is alleged, and liberally pepper it with editorialisation. --

4523:

sole reason for the Sun's story. The provided source, and all others as far as I recall, make it quite clear their chief concern was a fear their child was in imminent danger of a drugs overdose if the payments were not stopped immediately. And regardless of whether that's all true, half true or a compete lie, they are reported allegations and the Sun's public interest angle is and probably always was in the fact the BBC mishandled the complaint.

31: 1016: 4321:

Knowledge (XXG) editors distrust certain newspapers, that could either be very good advice, or an inadvertent admission that Knowledge (XXG) articles reflect the biases of its editors. The fact that the person giving that advice is unashamedly wearing their own bias, and has potentially already shown a propensity to lie when it suits their bias, one could be forgiven for thinking it's the latter not the former.

1465:

take a genius to put two and two together. Probably this is irrelevant and nothing can or should be done... Altho I could almost see an argument to exclude BLPs from the top read list, out of an abundance of caution. You could almost make an argument that, when people are looking to determine the identity of an "unnamed bbc presenter", listing that person as the most read article is implicitly defamatory.

1017:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66159469?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=64aedb76c3502b6dfaaff7d1%26Huw%20Edwards%20named%20as%20presenter%20by%20his%20wife%262023-07-12T16%3A57%3A48.663Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:71f9c445-8409-466c-9d95-7ca83dce498d&pinned_post_asset_id=64aedb76c3502b6dfaaff7d1&pinned_post_type=share

590: 4775: 4345: 1815: 1588: 5250: 2113: 2053: 379: 1162:, he was informed on 6 July and it was agreed (between whom isn't clear) that he "shouldn't appear on air", and on 9 July the BBC said it had suspended someone. Reading between the lines, I'd interpret this as towards the later stages on that timeline. I see we don't include the date of the suspension statement, but we probably should. -- 5277:

Since the police did drop the investigation, it's reasonable to conclude that the explicit photos weren't taken until after the alleged victim turned 18, but it would be synth to actually put that in the article without an RS explicitly saying so. Edit: therefore I took no action per that part of the

2783:

They said this: "via a legal letter given to the BBC, the youngster insisted nothing "unlawful” or “inappropriate” had happened between them and the presenter - who the youngster did not deny knowing, or receiving cash from." They did not claim that's how they "found out" the claims were all rubbish.

903:

Given the evolving & perilous nature of making public comment about Huw at the moment, I'd avoid publishing negative content unless you have a good grasp of British media law basics. The boundaries of what constitutes defamation aren't just made up by instinct - there's clear case law and guiding

448:

Not sure. Obviously playing a piece usually involves quite a few stops. Playing a long piece may involve changing between sets of stops. But it’s still possible to demonstrate the effect of stops on single notes or chords, without playing any piece of music. Stops are really not like the buttons on a

5479:

I'm leaning towards "no" as that's very much about the BBC as a whole as opposed to Edwards. But of course the nature of that coverage might turn out to have had an impact on Edwards, or the various investigations, enquiries and other commentary, so it's not wholly irrelevant by any stretch. I think

4522:

I don't understand their argument at all. I don't know why you even considered it relevant frankly. My addition is clearly, unequivocally, an expansion of the parental allegations. No fact is asserted or implied. By leaving it out, this article wrongly implies the images were their sole concern, the

854:

Ultimately the two pronunciations aren't all that distinct though so I'm not sure how much it matters. and are the same sound, phonetically speaking, but one symbol is used for when it's a consonant sound, the other for when it's a vowel. So the difference between the two is marginal, particularly

820:

Where does the first listed pronunciation of his name come from? On TV, I've only heard his name pronounced /hju/, i.e. like the word "hue" (or the name "Hugh"). But the first pronunciation listed is /hiːʊ/, which something like "HEE-oo". If this is maybe how his name is pronounced in Welsh, I think

463:

Hmmmmm thanks Martin and I'm not sure either! The above actually is a real tribute to my inability to express myself clearly and to choose an analogy which won't get off the runway before it leaves the slipway and then fruits without rooting. So please forget the horn! My stupid. But my point - such

5115:

The only thing I might change the article text is to make clear that the payments occurred over a period of time; as it's written now it sounds like a one-time payment was made when the alleged victim was 17 in exchange for illicit photos, which we know to be incorrect. We don't know when the first

4861:

I agree with both points – I know what the papers are saying, but BLP applies here and we should err on the side of caution. We should also make it clear that this was over a number of years and wasn't a one-off payment in the lead. Perhaps wording such as "paying for explicit images from a younger

4576:

FWIW, this how the Sun puts it now....."From the outset, we have reported a story about two very concerned and frustrated parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of a presenter and payments from him that fuelled the drug habit of a young person."....“We reported that the parents

4380:

The unique way the BBC is funded means there would be manifest public interest in knowing whether such allegations are being handled properly (while still under current interpretations of privacy law meaning the names should not be reported). There at least seems to be wide agreement, even from the

4320:

I too would be very interested to know if IPSO really are collating statistics regarding which newspapers are publishing stories they already knew to be false, and if those statistics damn The Sun in particular. As for this idea we should consult Knowledge (XXG)'s encyclopedia articles to learn why

4227:

I'm glad you've read them. Did you notice how they all use the same journalistic tricks to weight stories to the journalist's personal, or their publication's corporate leanings? Further, have you ever noticed how often Wiki editors insist that it's okay to use similar loaded vocabulary and blatant

2373:

The lead currently says "following allegations in The Sun that he had paid a 17-year-old for sexually explicit photos". Yet if no criminal offence was committed, this cannot be true. And the Sun is now claiming that it never suggested any criminal offence had taken place. So did the Sun ever say,

1978:

said, "Information was initially received by the force in April 2023 regarding the welfare of an adult. No criminality was identified... Following recent events, further enquiries have been carried out and officers have spoken to a number of parties to establish whether any criminal allegations are

1464:

Despite best efforts to keep this article clear of defamatory information before there were reliable sources available, it was Knowledge (XXG) where I first learned Huw was "the bbc presenter", nearly a full day before the news broke for real: This was listed as the top read article, and it doesn't

907:

The fact that the allegations originated somewhere else - and you're merely repeating them - isn't an accepted defence. You can still be held liable for promulgating the defamatory remarks. Bottom line, if/when a negative subject is confirmed as relevant to Huw, it'll enter his profile organically.

537:

and found nothing of any substance at all so it is not even clear what allegation you are talking about. If it is just the usual low grade whingeing about the BBC that the tabloids use to fill space on a wet Wednesday then it won't go in but if there is something genuinely substantial then it could

414:

Without wishing to offend anyone, can I please have a quick moan about a sentence in the "Other programming and appearances" subsection? This reads: "In January 2008, he introduced a special Songs of Praise programme in celebration of the organ, both playing the instrument and demonstrating some of

4706:

Please change "BBC journalists including Newsnight presenter Victoria Derbyshire were examining accusations of inappropriate behaviour involving Edwards before The Sun reported on the allegations." to "On Wednesday 13 July Newsnight reported that two current and one former junior BBC employees had

4376:

This provides additional context to the public interest angle still being asserted by The Sun, since at present this page wrongly gives the impression the only thing anyone was concerned about was the potential for this to have allegedly been a case of child sexual abuse, and that perhaps this has

3105:

was relying on an account from the person's mother and stepfather. They may have seen evidence that Edwards had behaved inappropriately, but the implied allegations of illegal conduct didn't stand up, and the parents had already gone to the police in April and been told that nothing was illegal by

3055:

All news media report what other people allege. How can we blame them if readers choose to read more into it than is actually written? The headline uses quote marks to differentiate between their own voice and that of the individual whom they are reporting on. Gossip and scandal is their bread and

1930:

On Friday the Sun condemned “sanctimonious haters of tabloids” who have pushed back on its reporting, pointing to subsequent investigations into Edwards’s conduct by BBC News reporters. The newspaper said its original story was clearly in the public interest because it gave a “voice to two worried

1913:

To my understanding, the individuals who initially raised the allegations against Edwards did so to South Wales Police, in April, Prior to raising it to the BBC and then Subsequently it was referred to the Metropolitan Police. Both police forces have indicated that no criminal offence has occurred

850:

Welsh spelling is transparently phonemic, and yes, /hiːʊ/ is how "Huw" is pronounced in Welsh. Specifying language might be a good idea but it's a bit tricky because, as the above comment notes, the Welsh pronunciation is used in Welsh English as well as Welsh itself. So it wouldn't be accurate to

4679:

AND it doesn't really matter what the money was used for, unless there's some evidence that he was giving it to them with the intention of them using it to buy cocaine - which seems extremely unlikely. When (for example) Rupert Murdoch makes donations to the Conservative Party, would we really be

4634:

questions. It seems the mother is estranged from the "victim" and the relationship with the step-father is unclear. Unless the victim actually gives their side of the story, or at least gives their permission for the parents to speak on their behalf, what actual "evidence" will be presented for a

3170:

said no, other media outlets said yes. Quote from BBC News: "The initial allegations, first reported by the Sun online on Friday evening, were that the news presenter paid a young person for sexually explicit photos, beginning when they were 17. In later versions of the story, the Sun changed the

2820:

We know that the person who was alleged to be the "victim" said they were rubbish. Or did the BBC also just invent that? Do you think the detail about "sworn affidavits" should be added to the article? How many RS sources so you have for that claim? I don't know much about them, and the degree of

2656:

is dancing on the head of a pin here. They went to considerable trouble to suggest that the story *might* have involved illegal conduct with a 17-year-old, and are now trying to extricate themselves from the controversy this has caused, after it emerged that they never had any evidence that would

5272:

On 10 July, the lawyer of the alleged victim told the BBC that "nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality and the allegations reported in The Sun newspaper are rubbish". The Sun stated: "It is understood contact between the two started when the

4946:

Sorry, been away for a couple of days. The Sun had originally quoted the stepfather of the person in question where he said he had reported things to the police and they said they were not able to proceed with any case as there was no illegality involved. This has since been confirmed by various

3246:

Ah yes, great editorial oversight. Just two different journalists. An easy mistake. And you accuse the BBC of "mischief-making"?! Do you think the BBC invented the other complaints just to show how easy it would have been to blackmail Edwards? It's very surprising to see a Knowledge (XXG) editor

4420:

Why? Since this is merely an expansion of what is already included in the given source, an expansion that prevents Knowledge (XXG) from potentially misrepresentating the parents (who from that source and all the others showed, were always quite clear they were more concerned about their child's

4133:

has trashed Edwards' career and put him in hospital. Any libel lawyers worth their salt might well be queuing up to take on his case. His projected loss of earnings won't exactly be negligible. In the mean time, Knowledge (XXG) has to be rather careful about what it says. I'm a bit surprised we

3627:

the news media operates isn't it, the so-called 'reliable sources' as well as those deemed unreliable by a minority of active Wiki editors? They get leaks, statements, accusations, allegations, etc. given to them by various aggrieved parties, and write a report relaying it. They obviously can't

899:

There's not a universal procedure for when it's ok to publish something - there's just liability under British law. If a Knowledge (XXG) editor defames someone by bringing them into disrepute, they become the legally responsible party for creating & spreading that negative public sentiment.

3299:

days. She says: "Even after the young person rubbished the claims, the Sun – a paper that used 16-year-old page 3 models – stood by its reporting. It cites the concerns of the parents about the money funding drug use; the allegation that the young person was 17 when the arrangement began, and

3139:

didn't imply anything, they just reported what they said the mother/stepfather told them and described the line, that if crossed, could mean criminality. Interpreting that any other way is, imho, misrepresenting it. That article you link to is nothing more than sour grapes from a competitor,

2522:

might easily have got the impression that Edwards had paid for explicit material when the person was 17 years old. The police said "Information was initially received by the force in April 2023 regarding the welfare of an adult. No criminality was identified. Following recent events, further

3512:

Stick to robustly supported facts, which given the COIs that exist between rival news outlets, may require us to check that what the 'reliable' sources are saying is actually true. And steer clear of any temptation to editorialise or use loaded terms reflecting our own personal bias against

1619:

The lede to this article currently says: "following allegations in The Sun that he had paid a 17-year-old for sexually explicit photos". These allegations, to the extent that they were made (rather than heavily insinuated), do not appear to be substantiated. I'm not sure that this currently

1626:

I'm really not sure sure this story belonds in the lede at all at this stage, while it is ongoing and murky. Neverthess, as a second option, if it is felt that the lede must include it, then perhaps just "In July 2023, Edwards was suspended by the BBC following allegations published in

4507:

We've gone as far as reporting that the alleged victim's parents made the initial reports. I don't have a particular problem putting the allegation of crack-cocaine use in their voice. But I also understand and appreciate your arguments, so I'm still on the fence but with a leaning.

1264:

We clearly need to include something about the issue, both in the lead and the body. It is amply covered by RS, and germane to a discussion about this public figure. I do agree the coverage is excessive at present though, it's occupying a large percentage of the article, violating

2690:

Clarifying for their readers that there was a line, that if crossed could have serious consequences was all they did. Misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what they were saying was not done by them, as far as I can see, if was done by others, including some Wiki editors. --

2883:

said that the stuff was given to them in "sworn affidavits" doesn't make it any more true, does it. We don't know they were give any sworn affidavits for sure, because no court has ever asked to see them. I'm not even sure the police would be that interested in them, would they?

4547:

For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been

1620:

developing news story belongs in the lede at all, when a much better written section under the subheading "2023 Suspension" covers it more accurately. I would remove the poorly worded section in the lede entirely, in favour of this better written, and more up-to-date section.

3828:

I don't see any clues there about repeated publication of false stories. All I see there are clues about how ridiculously indignant some people apparently get when they don't agree with how their favourite 'celebrity' has been characterised in an opinion piece. --

1502:

We cannot stop other people from speculating on other sites about that BBC presenter, which then resulted in a spike in views for the said presenter on Knowledge (XXG). We had nothing in article text about it until it was announced so Wiki is not in the wrong.

2734:"In their letter sent on Monday to the BBC, the lawyer says the young person sent a message on WhatsApp to the paper on Friday evening denying the claims, saying the statement their mother made to the newspaper was "totally wrong and there was no truth to it". 2476:

that the paper felt it was "in the public interest" to run the story as it highlighted that the BBC had not learned any lessons from the Savile scandal about taking complaints seriously. Here are some detailed questions for the paper that the BBC has set out:

5305:. They are purely temporary tags that something is disputed and needs some sort of action, and when the problem is resolved they will be removed. As they are never intended to be permanent part of the article content, surely they are not within the scope of 1239:

WP is not a newspaper and is not bound to act like one, reporting on "scandal". "Enormous amount of RS coverage" doesn't mean WP has to follow their lead either. There are currently three paragraphs in the WP article on something that didn't happen.

4372:

Please add ", who were concerned the payments were helping fund their child's crack cocaine addiction." after the text "The allegations were said to have been made by the mother and stepfather of the young person" (from the already provided source).

959:

2006–present. BBC News at Five discontinued in 2020, so it should state "2006-2020". In its place was the UK Government's daily press conference on COVID, but I'm not sure if this would be classed as its succession. Perhaps just state "Show Ended".

5513:

Also a no. I think this article should only include the most limited and pertinent aspects of this, so at this point purely what was alleged, that what was alleged has been de facto retracted, there were other allegations, Edwards is in hospital.

1487:

When the news is reporting on a scandal involving an "unnamed BBC presenter", having a public and highly visible list on Knowledge (XXG) (even if algorithmically generated) which names exactly one (1) BBC presenter... That's sketchy territory. 😬

875:

There's no "y" (/hju/) sound like there is in English, only a short "i" sound. "Hue" isn't pronounced the same way by English and Welsh speakers. Welsh speakers pronounce it as they do "Huw" and English speakers pronounce it as they do "Hugh".

1789:

article than here. OTOH, an editor just recently delinked that article, arguing it should only be a summary while this article should contain more details. I don't have strong opinions either way, so I'll step aside and let others discuss.

2428:

had rock solid evidence that Edwards had done something illegal, they could have gone to the police straight away. On Monday 10 July "the young person's step father is quoted as saying police had told him that whatever had happened "wasn't

2523:

enquiries have been carried out and officers have spoken to a number of parties to establish whether any criminal allegations are being made. At this time, there is no evidence that any criminal offences have been committed."

2409:

said "The well-known presenter is accused of giving the teen more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images." This implied that the images were obtained while the person was 17. This turned out to be a lie.

3308:

the BBC to "properly investigate". It looked more like it was holding the BBC to ransom just to make a point about its lax safeguarding procedures through extreme embarrassment. And the result? Edwards is now hospitalised.

5420:

that "The BBC lost its sense of proportion" in its coverage of the story, adding: "It gets into this mind-set where it feels it must make up for sluggishness in handling issues by showing a clean pair of hands in covering

5186:

is right. It may just mean that no evidence was presented to the police, for whatever reason. The young person(s) may have been the owner(s) of that evidence and decided not to present it. The more telling question is why

3879:

do not think it is a good idea, so have refused to be regulated by it. Are you using another source of objective stats that shows how the mainstream news media compare when it comes to the accuracy of their reporting? --

5104:

A TOP BBC star is off air while allegations he paid a teenager for sexual pictures are being investigated. The well-known presenter is accused of giving the teen more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid

4832:

To add to this, although it may need some discussion, the police have said that there was no illegality involved. That indicates that the person who was allegedly paid for photos was not under the age of 18 at the time.

4725:

Yes, why would a fellow presenter like Derbyshire be directly investigating Edwards? Is this how HR works at the BBC? Wasn't it just that she made Edward's name, in connection with this investigation, public by mistake?

934:

Thank you very much for the explanation. I definitely had no intention of making public any negative information about Huw. I'm just curious as to when it will happen on Knowledge (XXG). But you have also answered this.

1468:

Idk, just some random thoughts. The fact remains that I learned this information _from_ Knowledge (XXG), when it was still not considered public information, and existing BLP protections did nothing to prevent that.

4432:

Why? Because when I got here to answer the request, there was already pushback, and I don't automatically fulfill edit requests that are likely to be controversial or already challenged, no matter how well-sourced.

5362:, I thought it quite reasonable, and indeed very helpful, especially give the removers edit summary, to replace them. Perhaps you could put them back now, so readers and other editors are aware of the concern. -- 4492:

The wording you proposed reads like an assertion of fact to me. Anyway, given the doubts that have arisen about the remainder of the allegations, I see no particular reason to emphasise unverifiable claims here.

3599:

committed a criminal act. And then when it turned out he hadn't, the newspaper has been tying itself in knots to try to claim that it never did what all of its readers think it did. No wonder it's deprecated.

117:

On September 26th, 2012, Edwards had a rose named in his honour at the North Wales Horticultural Show. "Huw's News" was officially named during a small ceremony, with a token flower given to Edwards as a gift.

2612:

for our interpretation, via 3rd-party reports, of their reporting. Several times our articles had to be corrected after Wiki editors had misrepresented what the media was saying happened. As far as I can tell,

4096:

We already know that the police looked at this twice, in April and July 2023, and said on both occasions that Edwards had not done anything illegal. This overrides any claim and counterclaim in the media, and

643:

No immediate objections, although two of the others are also still living. I must say that "journalist" may not necessarily be the best way of describing a newsreader in any case There's a bit of a mixture at

5332:

explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it or, for simpler and more obvious problems, a remark using the reason parameter". This didn't happen, so it's not unreasonable to remove it.

1425:, used to support the claim in the article, "His salary was reduced voluntarily in the light of gender pay differences found within the BBC", ought to at least mention Edwards? Currently it does not. Thanks. 3231:

are mischief-making in that quote. It's not a case of the wording being changed, they are two different articles written by different journalists about different aspects of the story and allegations. --

3474:, and cannot see it saying they alleged that that happened. All I can see is mention of "sleazy messages", and not payments for anything, at that stage. That is a misrepresentation of the source's ( 961: 936: 3498:

headline there is "I blame BBC man for giving money for drugs to my child that could kill them, says mum of teen amid sex pics." Not sure what "teen amid sex pics" actually means, but never mind.

1343: 518: 5111:

On 7 July 2023, allegations were first reported by The Sun that a "well known" name at the BBC had been paying a then-17-year-old tens of thousands of pounds for sexually-explicit photographs.

1518:

Not technically in the wrong per Knowledge (XXG) policy, but as 8.9.82.32 says, one can put two and two together. Still, I'm not sure what the alternative would be - never show article views?

923: 3144:, themselves masters of a similar style of journalism which is often misrepresented too. That Guardian article doesn't point anything out, it is simply their interpretation and opinion which 2736:

The lawyer also claims in the letter that the mother and the young person are estranged. This was something else that the paper did not think worth mentioning, or did not bother to find out?

1206:

We are not directly citing The Sun though we are citing RSs like Sky News, The Guardian, and the BBC which is fine. Enoumous amount of RS coverage shows we should include the allegations per

5119:

In sum, I see no problem with how the article is written other than some updates and tidying up. Since you apparently think otherwise, please suggest a specific edit, with RS to back it up.

4710:

This is from the same source but more accurately records this was a separate incident, and further adds to the public interest element, namely the deficiency of the BBC's complaints system.

900:

Perhaps Knowledge (XXG) could also be held responsible in a grander sense - eg negligence in removing defamatory content - but that's less clear cut. The editor is taking the primary risk.

3354:

However, that is quite usual, but the surprising thing is how it seems to be acceptable and unquestioned for content harvested from the so-called 'reliable sources', yet when it's from

4470:

What on Earth are you taking about. My addition is part of the sentence that begins "The allegations....". It is an expansion of that allegation. No fact is being asserted or implied.

4806:

In the lead where it states: On 12 July 2023, he was identified by his wife as the BBC presenter being investigated for allegedly paying a 17 year old for sexually explicit photos.

3056:

butter - it is what their customers subscribe to. We don't have to make it worse by misrepresenting what they say, and then suggesting it was their fault we misrepresented them. --

1225:

Given the substantive coverage this has been getting in the more-trustworthy media, we can hardly ignore it. Which isn't to say we shouldn't show some sensitivity over the matter.

79:

What did he do before May 1999? They don't just stick you on the Six O'Clock News without some previous experience and exposure to the viewing public. 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

3470:

I was talking more about on this talkpage discussion than in the article, but there's an example in the article too, in the first sentence of the section. I've read, and re-read

3300:

therefore could not consent; and the failure of the BBC to speak to the parents. A spokesperson said: “It’s now for the BBC to properly investigate.”" It didn't really look like

3351:

has a clear COI in this, and their output should surely be discounted. I'm not defending a publication, I'm showing how what had been published is being misread/misrepresented.

3171:

wording of this allegation to "it is understood contact between the two started when the youngster was 17". This seems to follow from a straightforward interpretation of what

4168:, could very easily be found and I would have no objection to them being used instead of the BBC sources. And in answer to the unsigned question above, yes I have often read 1686:

backtracking, it's their competition suggesting this in an attempt to defend their own second hand relaying of the 3rd-party allegations given to, and therefore reported by,

5116:

pictures were sent, and we don't say so. We might infer no photos were sent until the alleged victim was 18, but that would be synth because afaik no RS say that either.

595: 2223:

We should wait until the piece airs before printing anything--if it even exists. Then if multiple RS say it was an obvious attempt to destroy the BBC we can run that.

1979:

being made. At this time, there is no evidence that any criminal offences have been committed. There are no ongoing enquiries being carried out by South Wales Police."

1659:

never had evidence that would have proved this, and that the police had already looked at the matter in April 2023 and decided that Edwards had done nothing illegal.--

1041: 4809:

There should be a sentence added: The alleged victim has denied this through her lawyer, and claims to be estranged from her mother who made the initial claims . The

4577:

had already been to the police who said that they couldn’t help."...“The parents then made a complaint to the BBC which was not acted upon.” Source (The Independent)

3918:

Should I have a reason not too? It's based on subjective opinions though, and not on the objective measurements I was hoping to see based on the findings of IPSO. --

1300:

This thread refers to commentary over alleged gender discrimination regarding BBC salaries, some six years ago. It has nothing to do with more recent events. And see

5084:, I'm not sure that I follow you, I thought what I said was quite clear. We have a reliable source throwing doubt on the assertion that I was questioning above. -- 4930:

the police have said that there was no illegality involved. That indicates that the person who was allegedly paid for photos was not under the age of 18 at the time

1114:"In separate claims, the newspaper published messages the presenter allegedly sent to a 17-year-old after initiating a conversation on Instagram in October 2018." 3664:. Most UK News media use journalists, and that is how they are trained to sell newspapers. Perhaps it's time to be honest about this, and deprecate them all. -- 2248: 2972:

We never cite them though, so that's irrelevant. It is a fact though that we do not know all the facts of the matter, and it is not our role to speculate. --

183: 1846:

To add the statement of No Criminality issued by South Wales Police in regard to the allegations against Huw Edwards from their investigation in April 2023

1124:

The Sky report also says this: "The BBC also said on Wednesday that Edwards was facing further allegations of "inappropriate behaviour" towards colleagues."

834:

Seems like a bit of a pedantic post to me, given that the name is ultimately Germanic in origin meaning 'mind' (eg. Dutch cognate 'geheugen' meaning memory).

322:

have suggested that “the Mail could be used for a basic fact of this sort”. I’d suggest using only the BBC source. I mean they ought to know, didn’t they!?

5030: 2466:

Yes, the "relationship" may have begun when the person was 17, but it seems there was never any exchange of "sordid images" at that age. News UK journalist

2031:

say that no criminal offence has been committed by Mr Edwards and neither force would currently be taking any further action in relation to the allegations.

4862:

male, beginning when he was a teenager" (someone can probably phrase this better than me). The teenage aspect doesn't seem in doubt, from what I can see. –

2202: 1143:

The article doesn't state when he was suspended. Presumably sometime between the lunchtime news on 5 July and the One Show the following evening (6 July).

366: 232: 156: 5137:, I'm not sure what point you're addressing here, but it doesn't seem to be the one that I was addressing in my post that you seem to be replying to. -- 3895: 2993:, you seem to have been at pains, throughout this entire thread, to tell us we must not misrepresent it. Where exactly do you think this has happened? 2432:

and the police may have been saying this as far back as April. Media reports hyped up the angle that Edwards might have committed an offence under the

1999:

As is usually the case there are questions about who said what to whom and when. To that end I found two timeline articles published on the 12th from

831:

In Wales his name is pronounced like the word 'hue' with a Welsh accent. In England it is pronounced 'hue' if you're saying it with an English accent.

469: 439: 420: 2333:

I agree that phrasing it as a "rival news outlet" is totally wrong here, and have removed that I would personally also just like to include what the

1899:

The Sky source seems to imply that the report of the original alleged possible criminal offence might have occurred in South Wales. Is that correct?

1181:. There is no evidence of criminal activity. So this article covers of events that didn't happen. Probably better to just remove the whole thing. " 645: 4302: 1749: 98:

He had previously been Chief Political Correspondent on News 24 before starting on the revamped Six O'Clock News. His Newswatch profile has it all

2705:

And what of the so-called teenage "victim" their self? Who actually told the paper on Friday it was all "rubbish"? Not worth reporting that bit??

2000: 1416: 3864:. And after you said they get caught by IPSO doing it more often I asked if you had links to the stats you were alluding too, but none turned up. 5273:

youngster was 17 years old", but that reporting did not mention whether explicit photos were exchanged when the alleged victim was 17 years old.

5238: 5010: 4955: 4841: 2530:

never had rock solid evidence that Edwards had done anything illegal, but worded the initial allegations in a way that suggested that he had.--

2515: 1849: 4148:

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we assert anything in Wiki's voice that is not supported by an RS or contravene any Wiki policies. --

4578: 3407:, you seem to have misunderstood my point. My point is that when we use a third-party source to support what another source has said (e.g. a 1327: 1050: 2004: 3965: 3591:, it merely used quotes and "this person says..." to make it appear to pretty much everyone reading it (and let's face it, I doubt if many 3532: 3252: 2789: 2591: 2495: 2307:

and suggests that it was only the latter newspaper that made such an interpretation of the story. Many other newspapers also reported what

2250: 2209: 2170: 2142: 1771: 1728:

there was evidence of criminality. Once the lawyer for the young person got involved, it quickly said "oh no, we didn't mean that at all".

1445: 1426: 1393: 1019: 465: 435: 416: 4988:, yes I get that, but how does that imply "that the person who was allegedly paid for photos was not under the age of 18 at the time"? -- 2860: 2898:

We don't yet know the truth in any of this, but surely we should not be taking sides like this, and giving an unbalanced account of what

571:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

5199: 4893: 3933: 3905: 3499: 3457: 3075: 2994: 2959: 2923: 2885: 2737: 2706: 2640: 2411: 2080: 2034: 1982: 1953: 1549: 1125: 1084:

It's already extend-protected. I don't think it needs to go further than that unless we see established users disrupting the article. —

837: 86: 1767: 1631:

Newspaper", and leave the details of those allegations to be covered in its relevant subsection. Better to be vague than misleading.

965: 940: 4727: 4640: 4255: 4199: 4135: 3815: 3691: 3647: 3610: 3373: 3310: 2822: 2319: 1900: 1729: 1564: 1347: 1074: 522: 5480:

I'd prefer to leave it out until/unless there's a firmer link between the nature of that coverage and its impact on Edwards himself.

919: 5026: 5005: 4985: 4950: 4925: 4836: 1937: 1120:"The youth, now aged 22, told The Sun "looking back now it does seem creepy because he was messaging me when I was still at school". 1042:

https://news.sky.com/story/huw-edwardss-wife-names-him-as-bbc-presenter-accused-of-paying-teen-for-explicit-pictures-report-12917735

996: 125: 1655:

appears to have backtracked on the key allegation that Edwards paid a 17-year-old for sexually explicit pictures. We now know that

2267:

before this discussion. If editors think it's undue for that article too, please let me know on that article's talk page. Thanks.

1704:

Maybe we should make all newspapers into unreliable sources then - and then we wouldn't be including it in the article, would we?

1852: 1761:

had been “taking initial soundings” in relation to claims against Edwards in the days before the Sun released its original story.

975:

I've updated the years as requested. Not sure how to get "show ended" in that final column, so I'll leave that for someone else.

3372:

Yes, wholly condemned. Rightly so. Apologies, I thought the sarcasm in my "obvious mistake" was obvious. I was being sarcastic.

2524: 915: 4010:

surprised if BBC News knowingly published anything that was false, considering what the result would be if it were reported...

2754:

article?) They are giving (also without endorsing it) another person's account, whether it is accurate, or not, we cannot say.

2433: 1489: 1470: 362: 228: 152: 4707:

received inappropriate messages from Edwards, but they had not filed a complaint in case it adversely affected their careers.

3107: 2854: 2635:, eh. That's a perfectly calm and well-balanced website headline, isn't it. They were just relying on "an expert" to say what 2557:"BBC SEX PROBE Top BBC star who 'paid child for sex pictures' could be charged by cops and face years in prison, expert says". 1320:

Is there any factual evidence for this, or is it just opinion pieces? If there is no solid evidence, this may be libellous.

4421:

health rather than whatever he may or may not have been doing as a consenting adult), what needs to be discussed, precisely?

2806:

weren't endorsing them, just reporting, in their own style, stuff that they say was given to them in "sworn affidavits". --

2349:

is (rightly) a deprecated source on this website. However, I think the sourcing is good enough to say that this is what the

908:

Until then, anyone making the link prematurely needs to understand & be wary of the legal minefield they're entering. -

5442: 5191:

did not publish the initial young person's statement, which they made on Friday, that no illegal activity had taken place.

4134:

haven't had any input from Jumbo Wales himself on this one. But then he generally only comments if he's asked, doesn't he?

2487: 1070: 479: 261: 3494:

This Talk page is supposed to exist only to help improve the article? How would you propose to re-write that text? I see

3292: 1881: 1785:

So there's some story there, but as much of it is about internal conflicts at the BBC, it might be a better fit for the

628:– Huw Edwards The Journalist and Newsreader is surely the first thing that comes to mind at the hearing of Huw Edwards. 2767: 769: 562: 4822: 4630:

Even if and when Piers Morgan appears with the "tell all" harrowing parental interview, this will still raise awkward

4456:

We have no credible source for anyone actually having a crack cocaine addiction. We don't report allegations as fact.

2264: 1757:

One of the most extraordinary claims, made by multiple individuals in the newsroom, is that BBC journalists including

798: 607: 3761:

I've got no reason to assume that any of them publish any less "stories that they knew at the time to be false" than

3950:

get caught by IPSO publishing stories that they knew at the time to be false more often than other news outlets. --

99: 3475: 1104: 1103:

The article details claims of inappropriate behaviour by three young people. There was a fourth, now aged 22. This

357: 223: 147: 66: 38: 4781: 4351: 1821: 1594: 4550:

Parental allegations their child has used illegal drugs is clearly information suggesting commission of a crime.

3787:) just get caught by IPSO doing it more often. How careless of them, you'd think they would have learnt by now. 2406: 1919: 1859: 1383: 4715: 4585: 4528: 4475: 4386: 4326: 3224: 1207: 706: 5029:, fair enough, if that's the only criteria that decides if paying for photos is illegal. But I wonder then why 4250: 2576: 1651:

It does belong in the lead section due to the significant amount of news coverage. You are right, though, that

1434: 1360:

You are commenting on a post made in 2018, referring to something which had no connection with current issues.

1335: 1331: 1054: 806: 731: 653: 621: 491: 454: 327: 303: 190: 3969: 3536: 3256: 2793: 2595: 2499: 2254: 2213: 2174: 2146: 1775: 1449: 1430: 1397: 1023: 781: 572: 5256:

Edit: I added "the mother and the young person are estranged" since that is reliably sourced, and pertinent.

5203: 4897: 3079: 2927: 2889: 2741: 2710: 2644: 1129: 1038:

Huw Edwards has not resigned from the BBC as at 1815 on 12/07/23. This correction confirmed by UK's Sky News

841: 337: 286: 90: 5239:

https://news.sky.com/story/no-criminal-offence-in-allegations-against-bbc-presenter-says-met-police-12919368

4818: 3937: 3932:

Do the "objective measurements" that you were hoping to see, based on the findings of IPSO, actually exist?

3909: 3860:

We're not talking about why they've been deprecated though, we're talking about your assertion that they've

3811: 3503: 3461: 2998: 2963: 2415: 2323: 2084: 2038: 1986: 1957: 1850:

https://news.sky.com/story/no-criminal-offence-in-allegations-against-bbc-presenter-says-met-police-12919368

1553: 4711: 4581: 4524: 4471: 4382: 4322: 2201:, the sister station of the Sun. Sources said the parents have been offered a significant sum for this." - 1323: 1046: 1000: 911: 871:

As "Huw" is a Welsh name, the only correct pronunciation is the Welsh one - the first one in this example:

121: 82: 4753: 4731: 4644: 4498: 4461: 4259: 4203: 4139: 3819: 3695: 3651: 3614: 3377: 3314: 3247:

defending a publication here that most other editors view as a pathetic comic. We even get a warning that

2826: 1904: 1733: 1568: 1365: 1230: 633: 602: 5402:, which destroyed someone who did not commit a crime", saying that the BBC "got drawn into a trap set by 2590:

Hey, thank heavens for press freedom, which protects the interests of the country's vulnerable children?

1622:

The current summary in the introduction may even be libellous, and I think its removal is one of urgency.

1493: 1474: 1266: 1245: 4602:

used to publish this story, and allegations relating to criminal activity are a matter for the police.--

1996:

That's an awfully big chunk to quote directly, but it does belong in the section. I'll work on that now.

1642: 777: 543: 268: 205: 129: 4542: 4098: 1301: 2719:

They did report that, and challenged it. Which source supports that they were told that on Friday? --

1638: 1010: 430:

PS On a much more important note, I think it's a major failing that this article doesn't use the word

5469: 5392:

The BBC's coverage of events was considered excessive by some. Claire Enders, a media analyst, told

5334: 4911: 4878: 4867: 4011: 3852: 3788: 3753: 3601: 3395: 2379: 2358: 2272: 2197:

understands that an interview with the couple has been recorded and is being edited for broadcast on

1915: 1855: 1523: 756: 693: 391: 345: 5515: 3471: 3220: 2821:

legal weight they hold, unless they are requested or provided as part of an ongoing criminal trial.

1981:" with that SkyNews article as a source? I guess they should also be mentioned in the lead section. 1270: 1241: 533:

Got any reliable sources discussing it that we can use as references? I did a very quick Google for

5519: 5347: 4244: 4190: 2393: 2134: 2024: 1545: 1511: 1218: 802: 727: 649: 487: 450: 323: 299: 201: 186: 5363: 5310: 5183: 5138: 5099: 5085: 5050: 5036: 4989: 4933: 4595: 4229: 4228:

editorialisation in Wiki's articles because that's the language used in the 'reliable' source? --

4149: 4051: 4042:

As none of the news outlets knows the full truth of the events yet, what's the difference between

3951: 3919: 3881: 3830: 3797: 3766: 3731: 3665: 3629: 3518: 3481: 3439: 3359: 3332: 3233: 3202: 3149: 3089: 3057: 3008: 2973: 2941: 2903: 2866: 2807: 2770: 2720: 2692: 2618: 2296: 1877: 1691: 283: 5394: 4814: 2138: 2028: 1975: 1541: 1254: 1195: 980: 714: 4254:. And I really don't think further discussion of this point will add any value to this article. 4102: 575:

after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1758: 279:

There are loads of sources that confirm five children, including his Who's who entry, but also

5501: 5385: 5367: 5314: 5142: 5089: 5040: 4993: 4937: 4749: 4494: 4457: 4310: 4233: 4153: 4055: 3955: 3923: 3885: 3834: 3801: 3770: 3735: 3669: 3633: 3522: 3485: 3443: 3363: 3336: 3331:

s lead and published it too. If the other media hadn't snapped it up, it wouldn't be here. --

3237: 3206: 3153: 3093: 3061: 3012: 2977: 2945: 2907: 2870: 2811: 2774: 2724: 2696: 2622: 1853:

https://metro.co.uk/2023/07/12/second-police-force-issue-statement-about-huw-edwards-19118225/

1786: 1695: 1361: 1278: 1226: 1148: 1069:

I think this article should be lock for editors because I think some folk will cross the line.

629: 585: 319: 5283: 5261: 5156: 5124: 5071: 4975: 4639:

or against the parents, how much of what the parents said might be considered "sub judice"?

4555: 4513: 4438: 4408: 4176: 4006:

said..." with RS. That's not exactly going to be difficult here. Having said that, I'd be

2784:

At least that letter is real evidence. As for the original claims, everything was hearsay -

2228: 2160: 2124: 2098: 2069: 2012: 1943: 1889: 1795: 1415:

If this comment was about alleged gender discrimination regarding BBC salaries in 2017, the

956: 860: 822: 744: 539: 483: 47: 17: 5306: 5301:, I thought cleanup templates should be left in place until the matter has been resolved - 4631: 4538: 4537:

Right. So the reason I could argue against inclusion of the drug use angle are policies at

2345:

said X" is really weird wording IMO), I understand the need for third-party references, as

1178: 5465: 5407: 5343: 5298: 4907: 4889: 4874: 4863: 4745: 4181: 3730:

have a massive COI in this story, so should not be considered reliable for it, at all. --

3404: 2482: 2354: 2268: 1876:

it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a

1519: 689: 387: 341: 291: 103: 5227: 4291: 4195: 2937: 2848: 2478: 1159: 3162:

We're starting to repeat ourselves; the question at the start of the thread was whether

280: 173: 5399: 3862:

got form for repeatedly publishing false stories that they knew at the time to be false

3283: 2733: 2430: 2389: 2239: 2205: 2064:, plus added the fact that SWP were the first police force contacted about the matter. 1504: 1211: 676: 5151:

I'll take that to mean you don't have a problem with anything written in the article.

4299:

have a massive COI in this story, so should not be considered reliable for it, at all.

4216:, but the first paragraph became separated from the second and its sig as a result of 1952:

Ah, so not only saying "the BBC doesn't care", but also "you can't trust the police"?

855:

in fluent speech when the distinction between /uː/ and /ʊ/ is likely to be reduced. --

4685: 4658: 3900: 3274: 2575:- that the presenter could potentially be charged with sexual exploitation under the 1709: 1250: 1191: 976: 881: 710: 851:

say only one of the pronunciations is English, because they're both used in English.

5481: 5412: 5198:

on Monday to just say that "contact had begun" when the young person was still 17.

4605: 4306: 4170: 4108: 3434:

As I said previously, I'm concerned how we find it acceptable to misrepresent what

3423:

said) then we should be as carful about the verifiability of what we write on what

3296: 3288: 3182: 3117: 2660: 2533: 2447: 2244: 2194: 1662: 1421: 1387: 1274: 1144: 668: 5063: 2837:

We know that the person who was alleged to be the "victim" said they were rubbish

2683:

s story not wanting to miss out, have got egg on their faces and are now blaming

5523: 5508: 5473: 5371: 5337: 5318: 5287: 5279: 5265: 5257: 5207: 5160: 5152: 5146: 5134: 5128: 5120: 5093: 5081: 5075: 5067: 5044: 5020: 4997: 4979: 4971: 4965: 4941: 4915: 4901: 4882: 4851: 4826: 4785: 4757: 4735: 4719: 4689: 4662: 4648: 4619: 4589: 4559: 4551: 4532: 4517: 4509: 4502: 4479: 4465: 4442: 4434: 4412: 4404: 4390: 4330: 4314: 4263: 4237: 4207: 4157: 4143: 4122: 4059: 4014: 3973: 3959: 3941: 3927: 3913: 3889: 3855: 3838: 3823: 3805: 3791: 3774: 3756: 3739: 3699: 3673: 3655: 3637: 3618: 3604: 3540: 3526: 3507: 3489: 3465: 3447: 3398: 3381: 3367: 3340: 3318: 3278: 3260: 3241: 3210: 3196: 3157: 3131: 3097: 3083: 3065: 3016: 3002: 2981: 2967: 2949: 2931: 2911: 2893: 2874: 2830: 2815: 2797: 2778: 2745: 2728: 2714: 2700: 2674: 2648: 2626: 2599: 2562: 2547: 2503: 2461: 2419: 2397: 2382: 2362: 2327: 2276: 2258: 2232: 2224: 2217: 2178: 2164: 2156: 2150: 2128: 2120: 2102: 2094: 2088: 2073: 2065: 2042: 2016: 2008: 1990: 1961: 1947: 1939: 1923: 1908: 1893: 1885: 1863: 1825: 1799: 1791: 1779: 1737: 1713: 1699: 1676: 1646: 1598: 1572: 1557: 1527: 1513: 1497: 1478: 1453: 1401: 1369: 1351: 1282: 1259: 1234: 1220: 1200: 1177:

Should any of the recent "news" even be listed on this article? Be careful with

1166: 1163: 1152: 1133: 1092: 1086: 1078: 1058: 1027: 1004: 984: 969: 944: 927: 896:

In response to a now-deleted comment asking a topical question about this page:

885: 864: 856: 845: 825: 810: 759: 747: 735: 718: 697: 680: 657: 637: 625: 614: 547: 526: 495: 473: 458: 443: 424: 395: 371: 349: 331: 307: 237: 194: 161: 133: 106: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4653:

Yes, and we need to be very careful we are not publishing something libellous.

3964:

Yes. Perhaps they only found out they were false later e.g. after the weekend.

2444:

claimed that this started when the person was 17, but the rest is less clear.--

4810: 4635:"crack cocaine habit"? If lawyers for Edwards decided to bring a case against 2467: 2311:

had said and made the same interpretation. I think this article should report

1933:

after being unhappy with initial responses from South Wales police and the BBC

499: 209: 178: 3265:

It seems weird to me that we're even considering quoting anything printed in

3007:

On this talkpage and in the first sentence of the section in the article. --

5328:

fall under it, but regardless "Tags must be accompanied by either a comment

4035:

cites and another is used to support what was "reported by The Sun" through

3609:

Yes. So it's a good job the statement in the lead section has been trimmed.

2567: 2472: 672: 5388:

article and was wondering if editors thought it was worth mentioning here?

4906:"Young(er) person" might be better wording, per the sources already given. 2802:

We don't know that that "the claims were all rubbish", but we do know that

2198: 176:. This was backed up by Edwards himself, in 2012, in an interview with the 5443:"The BBC Aired Saturation Coverage of Anchor's Behavior. Was It Too Much?" 5249: 4681: 4654: 4185: 3270: 2847:

said that stuff was given to them in "sworn affidavits", take your pick:

2007:

that may help other editors better organize the details in this section.

1705: 1441: 955:

In the external links of the article is a table where it states he hosts

877: 315: 2788:

had no real evidence of anything, that might have been used in a court.

2679:

That's not how I see it. I think other media who jealously picked up on

4129: 3851:, of course, to work out why they're deprecated and the others aren't. 3796:

If you say so. I don't know the stats - do you have a link to them? --

3166:

alleged that Edwards had behaved in an illegal way with a 17-year-old.

2918: 1628: 795: 2617:

never said in its own voice that anything illegal had taken place. --

2555:"A story on the paper's website published the same day was headlined 2388:

I imagine numerous lawyers are considering that question right now. —

2353:

was saying on X date, without actually using the article in question.

4970:

Which outlets? Does the article need to be modified to reflect this?

3201:

You are conflating "alleged" with "the reporting of allegations". --

1117:"The paper said the messages contained love heart emojis and kisses." 4336:

Add concern that Edwards was allegedly funding a crack cocaine habit

2865:. That seems to have been overlooked by our Wiki editors though. -- 801:

confirms that his birth name was just Huw, mother's name Protheroe.

102:. It is also already mentioned within the article. Hope that helps. 2561:"The piece reported comments made by former chief crown prosecutor 2079:

Many thanks. Should the SWP also be mentioned in the lead section?

4164:

I'm pretty sure that other RS sources, which attack that piece in

4598:. Other news sources have not seen any of the hard evidence that 3642:

Yes agreed, some news media. That's a pretty good summary of why

2588:

is a disgusting piece of tabloid filth that should be prosecuted.

3427:

said as we are about the verifiability of what we write on what

2440:

has now backtracked and accepted that none of this was illegal.

2378:

that "he had paid a 17-year-old for sexually explicit photos" ?

1342:

he's not actually done anything illegal from what i can gather.

141: 5002:

Because that would be illegal. Basic logic, but sure... synth.

3595:

readers are semantically analysing anything here) that Edwards

4769: 4339: 3690:

are a good place to start. Would you also ban use of the BBC?

3531:

Thanks for the lovely advice. What's your suggested re-write?

3251:

is an unreliable source when we post links on this Talk page!

1809: 1582: 872: 25: 3452:

Where in the article do you feel we have misrepresented what

1806:

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2023 (2)

5109:

Here's what our article says in the 2023 suspension section

2204:

Many other sources available. So obviously no question that

776:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this

4294:

opinions about BBC News in this thread epitomised by this:

2750:(BTW, did you spot the quote marks in the headline on that 1460:

Does the most read articles feature undermine protections?

1185:

gets its knickers in a twist and gets sued" belongs on the

434:

anywhere ... what is Knowledge (XXG) coming to, etc ... :)

3390:. This isn't a difficult concept. Why do you believe the 3114:

is trying to blame other news outlets for what happened.--

2986:

Regardless of the fact that we are not permitted to quote

2940:

and waiting until we know all the facts of the matter. --

2843:

said a lawyer told them that. As for RSes supporting that

5350:, so I gave a detailed explanation for adding them in my 5035:

say that it is only a "potentially" criminal offence. --

4766:

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2023

4027:

is never cited. Unbelievably two attacks on the piece in

3327:

though, it's because the rest of the news media followed

1579:

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2023

3678:

Sorry, I'm not prepared to lump "most UK media" in with

2839:. Well we don't know that for sure, all we know is that 2518:. An average person reading the original allegations in 336:

Yes, it should be added to the article. I would say the

5359: 5355: 5351: 5302: 4377:

gone away now and was maybe never there to begin with.

4221: 4217: 4213: 4194:, thanks. They are actually used on Knowledge (XXG) as 3867:

I did a few searches for IPSO stats, and it seems that

2292: 2061: 252:

sheet? Those snitchers unravel the gravel, baby; stone

5228:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66159357

4248:, for example, uses "the same journalistic tricks" as 3179:

has backtracked, in the view of other media outlets.--

2155:

I wasn't sure the convention. Added in front of both.

743:; the newsreader is certainly primary per the stats. 2299:. It frames the story as some kind of battle between 2093:

Could be, but IRL calls. Will come back to it later.

768:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

172:

The BBC said, in 2003, that Edwards was married with

4002:

We can report "The BBC said..." in the same way as "

3587:never actually accused Edwards of the criminal act 2639:. They hardly have "their own voice", do they. lol 2141:less so but could also be for consistency. Thanks. 1931:parents” who approached it to protect their child, 3106:the time that the story was published in July. As 1444:, which actually names him alongside five others. 784:. No further edits should be made to this section. 4892:. What's your source for "younger male"? Thanks. 2758:said on Monday that they found that out from the 2247:interviewing, not that we can quote that anyway: 256:, y'dig? Now lay it on me, gates; are ya in the 1273:. I'd reduce from three paragraphs to one. — 667:per nom. The long-serving BBC newsreader gets 2936:No, it does not mean that, it means avoiding 2922:is unreliable, that seems to be unavoidable. 2687:for doing what they are best known for doing. 1386:? Also published by that wonderful newspaper 671:and clearly stands out as the primary topic. 8: 1292: 1158:I suspect no one really knows. According to 185:. Should this simple fact be added? Thanks. 4050:reporting what another party told them? -- 4305:that provides something more substantive. 3946:I assumed so when we were told above that 3843:You could always read our articles on the 1321: 1309:The following discussion has been closed. 1296: 1044: 909: 561:The following is a closed discussion of a 144:that a rose is a thorn by any other name. 80: 5436: 5434: 4928:, what's your source for this assertion: 4744:Our article follows what the source (the 4403:This needs to be talked out a bit first. 1563:Does anyone know what they actually did? 4817:have said they are not pursuing action. 3752:? That's why the others are deprecated. 3074:readers know what quote marks signify?? 2571:- which is owned by the same company as 2021:The SWG just says this, under 12 July: " 646:Category:BBC newsreaders and journalists 5430: 5220: 4046:reporting what one party told them and 962:2607:FEA8:935A:3A00:4436:573E:6371:3255 937:2607:FEA8:935A:3A00:4436:573E:6371:3255 5391: 5271: 5110: 5103: 5057: 4929: 4680:interested in what they spend it on? 4546: 4381:BBC, that it wasn't handled properly. 4295: 3861: 3750:that they knew at the time to be false 2836: 2022: 1974: 1929: 1756: 1344:2A02:C7E:5437:5400:1888:872A:1913:43CD 519:2A00:23C4:6384:FE00:C848:EEF:A546:1E86 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3394:can be considered a reliable source? 3148:are now interpreting in that way. -- 2954:No one in their right mind can trust 916:2A02:C7C:EC19:B200:7536:298E:9EC8:434 517:What about the allegations of bias? ( 482:as I understand it. Maybe you need a 7: 3646:as a "newspaper" is a load of junk. 2958:to necessarily present any "facts". 2879:Yes, and a RS source reporting that 580:The result of the move request was: 354:Thanks Dai, I agree. Please add it. 2514:There is a good article about this 2263:FWIW, I mentioned this over at the 1744:Edwards already being investigated? 1536:2023 suspension - two police forces 5346:, there was no 'reason' parameter 24: 5303:not reverted without a resolution 4212:My question wasn't unsigned when 4127:Yes, at this stage it looks like 2916:If "taking sides" means assuming 2762:s report of a letter sent to the 340:would be the best source to use. 5384:I've added the following to the 5248: 4773: 4395: 4343: 4198:sources quite often, I believe. 4039:s edititorialised version of it. 4023:three times in the article, and 3175:said in the original story, and 2111: 2051: 1868: 1813: 1586: 1544:be included? Currently only the 588: 377: 314:Haha yes, he’d probably have a “ 29: 2434:Protection of Children Act 1978 2137:needs to be preceded by "the", 1293:'Serious gender discrimination' 821:it would be good to specify. — 554:Requested move 11 February 2019 5441:Landler, Mark (13 July 2023). 5270:The article currently states: 5062:If you have RS answering that 4873:Struck through as inaccurate — 4242:I'm somewhat unconvinced that 3386:Yes, that's because it's from 1540:Should the part played by the 811:17:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC) 596:closed by non-admin page mover 548:22:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC) 527:16:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC) 134:13:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 1: 2608:It seems like we are blaming 2552:Wow. That article says this: 2424:It's all a bit confusing. If 1484:To put my point more pithily: 760:21:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC) 748:11:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC) 736:09:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC) 719:08:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC) 698:13:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC) 681:19:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC) 658:18:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC) 638:18:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC) 615:08:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC) 5293:Removal of cleanup templates 5102:, Here's what the Sun said: 5027:Catfish Jim and the soapdish 4986:Catfish Jim and the soapdish 4926:Catfish Jim and the soapdish 3744:Have they also got form for 991:Centre of explicit photo row 496:18:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 474:17:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 459:14:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 444:14:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 425:14:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 396:13:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 372:11:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 350:11:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 332:11:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 308:11:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 238:10:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 195:18:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC) 162:12:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 5348:presented for that template 4870:) 21:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 4800:to reactivate your request. 4788:has been answered. Set the 4594:It runs into problems with 4366:to reactivate your request. 4354:has been answered. Set the 3472:The Sun article referred to 3323:It's not because it was in 2265:TalkTV (British TV channel) 2208:is out to destroy the BBC. 1928:From the Gruan on 14 July: 1840:to reactivate your request. 1828:has been answered. Set the 1613:to reactivate your request. 1601:has been answered. Set the 873:https://forvo.com/word/huw/ 502:, but not published by BBC. 410:Songs of Praise awkwardness 107:20:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC) 5540: 5354:. And as a discussion was 5330:on the article's talk page 3088:But that's irrelevant. -- 688:. Clear primary topic. -- 5524:19:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC) 5509:12:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC) 5474:11:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC) 5380:Criticism of BBC coverage 5372:13:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC) 5338:13:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC) 5319:10:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC) 5288:16:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 5266:16:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 5208:22:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 5161:01:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC) 5147:21:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 5129:21:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 5094:20:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 5076:20:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 5045:19:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 5021:18:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 4998:18:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 4980:17:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 4966:17:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 4942:22:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 4916:22:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 4902:21:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 4883:13:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC) 4852:20:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 4827:19:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 4758:15:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4736:08:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4720:02:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4690:15:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4663:15:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4649:08:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4620:06:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4590:02:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4560:02:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4533:01:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4518:01:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4503:01:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4480:00:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4466:00:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4443:01:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4413:00:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4391:00:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4331:01:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4315:20:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC) 4264:08:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4238:16:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 4208:14:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 4158:16:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 4144:15:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 4123:13:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 4060:12:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 4015:11:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3974:21:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3960:20:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3942:20:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3928:20:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3914:19:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3890:18:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3856:17:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3839:16:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3824:15:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3806:12:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3792:12:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3775:12:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3757:11:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3748:publishing false stories 3740:11:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3700:11:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3674:11:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3656:10:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3638:10:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3619:10:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3605:10:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3541:21:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3527:20:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3508:19:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3490:19:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3466:18:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3448:18:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3399:18:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3382:14:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3368:11:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3341:11:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3319:10:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3279:07:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3261:07:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3242:18:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 3211:18:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 3197:18:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 3158:17:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 3132:17:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 3098:16:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 3084:16:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 3066:16:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 3017:20:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 3003:19:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 2982:19:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 2968:19:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 2950:18:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 2932:16:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 2912:16:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 2894:16:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 2875:16:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 2831:14:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 2816:11:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 2798:07:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 2779:17:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 2746:17:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 2729:17:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 2715:16:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 2701:16:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 2675:16:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 2649:16:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 2637:"could potentially happen 2627:15:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 2600:15:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 2548:14:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 2504:13:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 2462:12:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 2420:12:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 2398:12:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 2383:12:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 2363:00:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 2328:21:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC) 2277:13:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC) 2259:20:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC) 2233:20:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC) 2218:19:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC) 2179:20:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC) 2165:19:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC) 2151:19:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC) 2129:18:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC) 2103:20:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 2089:20:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 2074:19:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 2043:19:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 2017:19:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 1991:18:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 1973:What about adding this: " 1962:18:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 1948:18:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 1924:17:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 1909:15:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 1894:18:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 1864:15:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 1800:19:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC) 1780:18:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 1738:10:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 1714:09:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC) 1700:10:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 1677:07:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 1647:07:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 1573:14:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 1558:12:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 1528:13:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC) 1514:18:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 1498:14:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 1479:14:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 1454:09:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 1440:A better source might be 1435:19:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 1402:19:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 1370:18:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 1352:18:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 1283:09:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 1260:08:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 1235:01:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 1221:01:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 1201:01:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 1167:08:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 1153:00:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 1134:21:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 1093:18:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 1079:18:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 1059:17:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 1028:17:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 1005:17:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 985:05:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 970:01:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 945:23:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC) 928:23:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC) 886:14:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC) 865:11:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC) 846:17:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC) 5066:then please provide it. 4702:Alter Newsnight sentence 3894:DeFacto, do you believe 3480:) misrepresentation. -- 2577:Sexual Offences Act 2003 1763:" It's also reported in 1312:Please do not modify it. 1071:Earl of Sutton Coldfield 826:23:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC) 774:Please do not modify it. 622:Huw Edwards (journalist) 568:Please do not modify it. 5410:, the former editor of 1336:22:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC) 755:Because of interest. -- 208:were to catch sight of 5324:I can't see that they 4105:come into play here.-- 3070:You are assuming that 2657:have backed this up.-- 2526:So to put it bluntly, 2402:The initial report in 1878:"change X to Y" format 1726:very strongly implying 5398:: "What we had was a 4446:signed after the fact 3295:reminds us about the 1382:Perhaps it was about 538:do. What is there? -- 358:Gareth Griffith-Jones 318:”. But folks over at 224:Gareth Griffith-Jones 148:Gareth Griffith-Jones 42:of past discussions. 3358:it is condemned. -- 3227:suggests to me that 2631:Gosh, yes. Poor old 2001:South Wales Guardian 498:p.s. there's a clip 449:horn. Just my view. 260:? or is you a solid 204:, Now if our friend 5196:changed their story 4290:There's some crude 4245:The Financial Times 4191:The Daily Telegraph 4031:are supported with 3704:Have you ever read 2135:Metropolitan Police 2025:Metropolitan Police 1759:Victoria Derbyshire 1546:Metropolitan Police 1384:this charming story 1189:article not here. 892:Defamation guidance 535:"Huw Edwards", bias 298:cannot be trusted. 5447:The New York Times 5395:The New York Times 4815:South Wales Police 4019:Currently we cite 3347:Eh? What mistake? 2237:Seems reasonable. 2139:South Wales Police 2029:South Wales Police 1976:South Wales Police 1542:South Wales Police 995:Named by his wife 370: 236: 160: 5506: 5386:BBC controversies 5360:tags were removed 5335:Black Kite (talk) 5058:I wonder then why 5017: 4962: 4848: 4819:Oh no no no no no 4804: 4803: 4447: 4401:Not done for now: 4370: 4369: 4012:Black Kite (talk) 3853:Black Kite (talk) 3789:Black Kite (talk) 3754:Black Kite (talk) 3602:Black Kite (talk) 3396:Black Kite (talk) 2486:has set out some 2470:claimed on BBC's 2380:Black Kite (talk) 2243:says it might be 1844: 1843: 1787:BBC controversies 1617: 1616: 1413: 1412: 1338: 1326:comment added by 1065:Lock this article 1061: 1049:comment added by 930: 914:comment added by 816:Name pronuciation 599: 486:with that cuppa? 365: 355: 231: 221: 155: 145: 124:comment added by 94: 85:comment added by 72: 71: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5531: 5502: 5458: 5457: 5455: 5453: 5438: 5416:, also told the 5356:already underway 5252: 5241: 5236: 5230: 5225: 5016:and the soapdish 5015: 5013: 5008: 4961:and the soapdish 4960: 4958: 4953: 4885: 4847:and the soapdish 4846: 4844: 4839: 4795: 4791: 4777: 4776: 4770: 4712:GrandBlasterMash 4615: 4613: 4612: 4582:GrandBlasterMash 4525:GrandBlasterMash 4472:GrandBlasterMash 4445: 4399: 4398: 4383:GrandBlasterMash 4361: 4357: 4347: 4346: 4340: 4323:GrandBlasterMash 4177:The Daily Mirror 4118: 4116: 4115: 3682:. But I'd agree 3589:in its own voice 3419:report for what 3411:report for what 3192: 3190: 3189: 3127: 3125: 3124: 2670: 2668: 2667: 2543: 2541: 2540: 2457: 2455: 2454: 2291:I disagree with 2189:TalkTV interview 2119: 2115: 2114: 2059: 2055: 2054: 1884:if appropriate. 1872: 1871: 1835: 1831: 1817: 1816: 1810: 1720:I wholly agree. 1672: 1670: 1669: 1608: 1604: 1590: 1589: 1583: 1509: 1314: 1297: 1258: 1216: 1199: 957:BBC News at Five 951:BBC News at Five 669:90% of pageviews 612: 610: 605: 593: 592: 591: 570: 478:Yes, a charming 385: 381: 380: 361: 269:Hillbillyholiday 227: 151: 136: 113:Naming of Flower 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 18:Talk:Huw Edwards 5539: 5538: 5534: 5533: 5532: 5530: 5529: 5528: 5463: 5462: 5461: 5451: 5449: 5440: 5439: 5432: 5408:Alan Rusbridger 5382: 5295: 5246: 5245: 5244: 5237: 5233: 5226: 5222: 5011: 5006: 4956: 4951: 4872: 4842: 4837: 4793: 4789: 4774: 4768: 4746:Daily Telegraph 4704: 4610: 4608: 4606: 4545:, which states 4541:, specifically 4396: 4359: 4355: 4344: 4338: 4182:The Independent 4113: 4111: 4109: 3873:Financial Times 3225:Tuesday article 3187: 3185: 3183: 3122: 3120: 3118: 2665: 2663: 2661: 2538: 2536: 2534: 2483:The Independent 2452: 2450: 2448: 2371: 2369:Sun allegations 2289: 2191: 2112: 2110: 2052: 2050: 1916:Knowledgework69 1882:reliable source 1869: 1856:Knowledgework69 1833: 1829: 1814: 1808: 1746: 1724:started off by 1667: 1665: 1663: 1606: 1602: 1587: 1581: 1548:are mentioned. 1538: 1505: 1462: 1328:176.250.226.227 1310: 1295: 1249: 1212: 1208:WP:PUBLICFIGURE 1190: 1175: 1141: 1139:2023 suspension 1101: 1099:Creepy messages 1067: 1051:147.148.123.246 1036: 993: 953: 894: 818: 793: 788: 707:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC 608: 603: 601: 589: 586:snowball clause 566: 556: 515: 412: 378: 376: 338:Cardiff Uni bio 292:User:Iridescent 170: 119: 115: 77: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5537: 5535: 5527: 5526: 5511: 5460: 5459: 5429: 5428: 5424: 5400:kangaroo court 5381: 5378: 5377: 5376: 5375: 5374: 5294: 5291: 5243: 5242: 5231: 5219: 5218: 5214: 5213: 5212: 5211: 5210: 5181: 5180: 5179: 5178: 5177: 5176: 5175: 5174: 5173: 5172: 5171: 5170: 5169: 5168: 5167: 5166: 5165: 5164: 5163: 5117: 5113: 5107: 5060: 5054: 4982: 4922: 4921: 4920: 4919: 4918: 4855: 4854: 4802: 4801: 4778: 4767: 4764: 4763: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4739: 4738: 4703: 4700: 4699: 4698: 4697: 4696: 4695: 4694: 4693: 4692: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4573: 4572: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4568: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4422: 4368: 4367: 4348: 4337: 4334: 4318: 4317: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4225: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4146: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4040: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3966:86.187.169.105 3865: 3725: 3688:The Daily Mail 3621: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3533:86.187.169.105 3456:said? Thanks. 3432: 3384: 3352: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3321: 3284:Jane Martinson 3253:86.187.167.149 3221:Friday article 3213: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 2790:86.187.167.149 2688: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2592:86.187.234.130 2582: 2581: 2580: 2559: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2496:86.187.168.186 2400: 2370: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2317:actually said. 2288: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2251:86.187.165.128 2240:The Daily Mail 2210:86.187.165.128 2206:Rupert Murdoch 2190: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2171:86.187.165.128 2143:86.187.165.128 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 1997: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1880:and provide a 1842: 1841: 1818: 1807: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1772:86.187.170.249 1745: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1615: 1614: 1591: 1580: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1537: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1500: 1485: 1461: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1446:86.187.230.134 1427:86.187.229.179 1417:current source 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1394:86.187.229.179 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1355: 1354: 1316: 1315: 1306: 1305: 1294: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1223: 1174: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1140: 1137: 1122: 1121: 1118: 1115: 1100: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1066: 1063: 1035: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1020:185.222.21.158 1013: 992: 989: 988: 987: 952: 949: 948: 947: 893: 890: 889: 888: 868: 867: 852: 848: 835: 832: 817: 814: 803:Martinevans123 792: 789: 787: 786: 770:requested move 764: 763: 762: 750: 738: 728:Martinevans123 726:as per above. 721: 700: 683: 661: 660: 650:Martinevans123 620: 618: 578: 577: 563:requested move 557: 555: 552: 551: 550: 514: 511: 510: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 488:Martinevans123 451:Martinevans123 411: 408: 407: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 400: 399: 398: 324:Martinevans123 312: 311: 310: 300:Martinevans123 294:suggests that 277: 276: 275: 274: 273: 272: 271: 263:bringer-downer 187:Martinevans123 169: 166: 165: 164: 114: 111: 110: 109: 76: 75:Earlier career 73: 70: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5536: 5525: 5521: 5517: 5512: 5510: 5507: 5505: 5500: 5499: 5496: 5493: 5490: 5487: 5484: 5478: 5477: 5476: 5475: 5471: 5467: 5448: 5444: 5437: 5435: 5431: 5427: 5423: 5422: 5419: 5415: 5414: 5409: 5405: 5401: 5397: 5396: 5389: 5387: 5379: 5373: 5369: 5365: 5361: 5357: 5353: 5349: 5345: 5341: 5340: 5339: 5336: 5331: 5327: 5323: 5322: 5321: 5320: 5316: 5312: 5308: 5304: 5300: 5292: 5290: 5289: 5285: 5281: 5275: 5274: 5268: 5267: 5263: 5259: 5255: 5251: 5240: 5235: 5232: 5229: 5224: 5221: 5217: 5209: 5205: 5201: 5200:86.187.224.83 5197: 5194: 5190: 5185: 5182: 5162: 5158: 5154: 5150: 5149: 5148: 5144: 5140: 5136: 5132: 5131: 5130: 5126: 5122: 5118: 5114: 5112: 5108: 5106: 5101: 5097: 5096: 5095: 5091: 5087: 5083: 5079: 5078: 5077: 5073: 5069: 5065: 5061: 5059: 5055: 5052: 5048: 5047: 5046: 5042: 5038: 5034: 5033: 5028: 5024: 5023: 5022: 5019: 5018: 5014: 5009: 5001: 5000: 4999: 4995: 4991: 4987: 4983: 4981: 4977: 4973: 4969: 4968: 4967: 4964: 4963: 4959: 4954: 4945: 4944: 4943: 4939: 4935: 4931: 4927: 4923: 4917: 4913: 4909: 4905: 4904: 4903: 4899: 4895: 4894:86.187.224.83 4891: 4887: 4886: 4884: 4880: 4876: 4871: 4869: 4865: 4859: 4858: 4857: 4856: 4853: 4850: 4849: 4845: 4840: 4831: 4830: 4829: 4828: 4824: 4820: 4816: 4812: 4807: 4799: 4796:parameter to 4787: 4783: 4779: 4772: 4771: 4765: 4759: 4755: 4751: 4747: 4743: 4742: 4741: 4740: 4737: 4733: 4729: 4724: 4723: 4722: 4721: 4717: 4713: 4708: 4701: 4691: 4687: 4683: 4678: 4677: 4676: 4675: 4674: 4673: 4672: 4671: 4664: 4660: 4656: 4652: 4651: 4650: 4646: 4642: 4638: 4633: 4629: 4628: 4627: 4626: 4621: 4618: 4617: 4616: 4601: 4597: 4593: 4592: 4591: 4587: 4583: 4579: 4575: 4574: 4561: 4557: 4553: 4549: 4544: 4540: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4530: 4526: 4521: 4520: 4519: 4515: 4511: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4500: 4496: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4486: 4481: 4477: 4473: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4463: 4459: 4455: 4454: 4444: 4440: 4436: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4419: 4418: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4414: 4410: 4406: 4402: 4393: 4392: 4388: 4384: 4378: 4374: 4365: 4362:parameter to 4353: 4349: 4342: 4341: 4335: 4333: 4332: 4328: 4324: 4316: 4312: 4308: 4304: 4300: 4298: 4293: 4289: 4288: 4265: 4261: 4257: 4253: 4252: 4247: 4246: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4235: 4231: 4226: 4223: 4220:, but I have 4219: 4215: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4205: 4201: 4197: 4193: 4192: 4187: 4183: 4180: 4178: 4173: 4172: 4167: 4163: 4159: 4155: 4151: 4147: 4145: 4141: 4137: 4132: 4131: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4104: 4100: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4092: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4061: 4057: 4053: 4049: 4045: 4041: 4038: 4034: 4030: 4026: 4022: 4018: 4017: 4016: 4013: 4009: 4005: 4001: 3975: 3971: 3967: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3939: 3935: 3934:86.187.168.33 3931: 3930: 3929: 3925: 3921: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3911: 3907: 3906:86.187.168.33 3903: 3902: 3901:Press Gazette 3897: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3887: 3883: 3878: 3874: 3870: 3866: 3863: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3854: 3850: 3846: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3836: 3832: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3821: 3817: 3813: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3803: 3799: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3790: 3786: 3782: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3755: 3751: 3747: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3737: 3733: 3729: 3726: 3723: 3722:The Telegraph 3719: 3715: 3711: 3707: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3697: 3693: 3689: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3653: 3649: 3645: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3635: 3631: 3626: 3622: 3620: 3616: 3612: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3603: 3598: 3594: 3590: 3586: 3583: 3582:So, to sum up 3580: 3579: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3524: 3520: 3516: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3505: 3501: 3500:86.187.168.33 3497: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3487: 3483: 3479: 3478: 3473: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3458:86.187.168.33 3455: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3433: 3430: 3426: 3422: 3418: 3414: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3385: 3383: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3353: 3350: 3346: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3326: 3322: 3320: 3316: 3312: 3307: 3304:was actually 3303: 3298: 3294: 3291: 3290: 3285: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3276: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3230: 3226: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3178: 3174: 3169: 3165: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3138: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3113: 3109: 3104: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3081: 3077: 3076:86.187.233.10 3073: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3054: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2995:86.187.168.33 2992: 2989: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2960:86.187.168.33 2957: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2924:86.187.173.57 2921: 2920: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2909: 2905: 2901: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2891: 2887: 2886:86.187.173.57 2882: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2863: 2858: 2857: 2852: 2851: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2765: 2761: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2738:86.187.233.10 2735: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2712: 2708: 2707:86.187.233.10 2704: 2703: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2689: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2655: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2641:86.187.239.10 2638: 2634: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2611: 2607: 2606: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2587: 2583: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2569: 2564: 2560: 2558: 2554: 2553: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2512: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2491: 2485: 2484: 2479: 2475: 2474: 2469: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2412:86.187.173.18 2408: 2405: 2401: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2381: 2377: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2318: 2316: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2286: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2249: 2246: 2242: 2241: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2200: 2196: 2188: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2169:Many thanks. 2168: 2167: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2081:86.187.168.33 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2058: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2035:86.187.168.33 2032: 2030: 2026: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1983:86.187.168.33 1980: 1977: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1954:86.187.168.33 1951: 1950: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1938: 1936: 1934: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1866: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1854: 1851: 1847: 1839: 1836:parameter to 1827: 1823: 1819: 1812: 1811: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1788: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1766: 1765:The Telegraph 1762: 1760: 1754: 1751: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1658: 1654: 1649: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1635: 1632: 1630: 1624: 1623: 1612: 1609:parameter to 1600: 1596: 1592: 1585: 1584: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1550:86.187.173.18 1547: 1543: 1535: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1512: 1510: 1508: 1501: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1486: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1466: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1423: 1418: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1390: 1385: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1318: 1317: 1313: 1308: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1298: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1256: 1252: 1247: 1243: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1222: 1219: 1217: 1215: 1209: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1197: 1193: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1172: 1168: 1165: 1161: 1160:this timeline 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1138: 1136: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1126:86.187.224.83 1119: 1116: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1109: 1107: 1098: 1094: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1064: 1062: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1043: 1039: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1018: 1014: 1012: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1002: 998: 990: 986: 982: 978: 974: 973: 972: 971: 967: 963: 958: 950: 946: 942: 938: 933: 932: 931: 929: 925: 921: 917: 913: 905: 901: 897: 891: 887: 883: 879: 874: 870: 869: 866: 862: 858: 853: 849: 847: 843: 839: 838:89.241.31.109 836: 833: 830: 829: 828: 827: 824: 815: 813: 812: 808: 804: 800: 797: 790: 785: 783: 779: 775: 771: 766: 765: 761: 758: 754: 751: 749: 746: 742: 739: 737: 733: 729: 725: 722: 720: 716: 712: 708: 704: 701: 699: 695: 691: 687: 684: 682: 678: 674: 670: 666: 663: 662: 659: 655: 651: 647: 642: 641: 640: 639: 635: 631: 627: 623: 617: 616: 613: 611: 606: 597: 587: 583: 576: 574: 569: 564: 559: 558: 553: 549: 545: 541: 536: 532: 531: 530: 528: 524: 520: 512: 501: 497: 493: 489: 485: 481: 477: 476: 475: 471: 467: 462: 461: 460: 456: 452: 447: 446: 445: 441: 437: 433: 429: 428: 427: 426: 422: 418: 409: 397: 393: 389: 384: 375: 374: 373: 368: 364: 359: 353: 352: 351: 347: 343: 339: 335: 334: 333: 329: 325: 321: 317: 313: 309: 305: 301: 297: 293: 290: 289: 287: 284: 281: 278: 270: 266: 264: 259: 255: 251: 247: 246: 245: 244: 243: 242: 241: 240: 239: 234: 230: 225: 219: 215: 211: 207: 203: 199: 198: 197: 196: 192: 188: 184: 181: 180: 175: 174:five children 167: 163: 158: 154: 149: 143: 139: 138: 137: 135: 131: 127: 123: 112: 108: 105: 101: 97: 96: 95: 92: 88: 87:86.138.17.141 84: 74: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5503: 5497: 5494: 5491: 5488: 5485: 5482: 5464: 5450:. Retrieved 5446: 5425: 5417: 5413:The Guardian 5411: 5403: 5393: 5390: 5383: 5352:edit summary 5329: 5325: 5296: 5278:discussion. 5276: 5269: 5254:Partly done: 5253: 5247: 5234: 5223: 5215: 5195: 5192: 5188: 5032:The Guardian 5031: 5004: 5003: 4949: 4948: 4860: 4835: 4834: 4808: 4805: 4797: 4782:edit request 4750:AndyTheGrump 4728:205.239.40.3 4709: 4705: 4641:205.239.40.3 4636: 4604: 4603: 4599: 4495:AndyTheGrump 4458:AndyTheGrump 4400: 4394: 4379: 4375: 4371: 4363: 4352:edit request 4319: 4303:here's an RS 4296: 4256:205.239.40.3 4249: 4243: 4222:now fixed it 4200:205.239.40.3 4189: 4175: 4171:The Guardian 4169: 4165: 4136:205.239.40.3 4128: 4107: 4106: 4047: 4043: 4036: 4032: 4028: 4024: 4020: 4007: 4003: 3947: 3899: 3876: 3872: 3869:The Guardian 3868: 3848: 3844: 3816:205.239.40.3 3784: 3780: 3762: 3749: 3745: 3727: 3721: 3717: 3713: 3709: 3706:The Guardian 3705: 3692:205.239.40.3 3687: 3683: 3679: 3661: 3648:205.239.40.3 3643: 3624: 3611:205.239.40.3 3596: 3592: 3588: 3584: 3581: 3514: 3495: 3477:The Guardian 3476: 3453: 3435: 3428: 3424: 3420: 3416: 3412: 3408: 3391: 3387: 3374:205.239.40.3 3355: 3348: 3328: 3324: 3311:205.239.40.3 3305: 3301: 3297:Samantha Fox 3289:The Guardian 3287: 3266: 3248: 3228: 3216: 3181: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3167: 3163: 3145: 3142:The Guardian 3141: 3136: 3116: 3115: 3111: 3110:points out, 3108:this article 3102: 3071: 2990: 2987: 2955: 2917: 2899: 2880: 2861: 2856:The Guardian 2855: 2849: 2844: 2840: 2823:205.239.40.3 2803: 2785: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2684: 2680: 2659: 2658: 2653: 2636: 2632: 2614: 2609: 2585: 2584: 2572: 2566: 2556: 2532: 2531: 2527: 2519: 2489: 2481: 2471: 2446: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2425: 2403: 2375: 2372: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2339:The Guardian 2338: 2334: 2320:86.187.237.6 2314: 2312: 2308: 2305:The Guardian 2304: 2300: 2297:User:DeFacto 2290: 2245:Piers Morgan 2238: 2195:The Guardian 2192: 2116: 2109: 2060:I basically 2056: 2049: 1972: 1932: 1901:205.239.40.3 1873: 1867: 1848: 1845: 1837: 1822:edit request 1764: 1753:The Guardian 1752: 1750:this article 1747: 1730:205.239.40.3 1725: 1721: 1687: 1683: 1661: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1650: 1636: 1633: 1625: 1621: 1618: 1610: 1595:edit request 1565:205.239.40.3 1539: 1507:Spy-cicle💥 1506: 1467: 1463: 1422:The Guardian 1420: 1414: 1388: 1362:AndyTheGrump 1322:— Preceding 1319: 1311: 1267:WP:RECENTISM 1246:WP:NOTGOSSIP 1227:AndyTheGrump 1214:Spy-cicle💥 1213: 1186: 1182: 1176: 1142: 1123: 1105: 1102: 1087: 1085: 1068: 1045:— Preceding 1040: 1037: 1011:@86.178.1.22 994: 954: 910:— Preceding 906: 902: 898: 895: 819: 794: 773: 767: 752: 740: 723: 702: 685: 664: 630:Andysmith248 619: 600: 581: 579: 567: 560: 534: 516: 431: 413: 382: 295: 262: 257: 253: 249: 217: 213: 177: 171: 120:— Preceding 116: 81:— Preceding 78: 60: 43: 37: 5358:before the 4786:Huw Edwards 4543:WP:BLPCRIME 4214:I posted it 4099:WP:BLPCRIME 3896:this report 3877:Independent 3714:Independent 3623:That's how 3223:with their 2563:Nazir Afzal 2488:"cracks in 2287:Recent edit 2033:" Thanks.. 1826:Huw Edwards 1639:Tomatoswoop 1599:Huw Edwards 1302:WP:NOTFORUM 1034:Resignation 997:86.178.1.22 782:move review 626:Huw Edwards 573:move review 540:DanielRigal 480:rural idiom 212:, he would 206:Hilly Billy 126:71.7.231.65 36:This is an 5466:GnocchiFan 5426:References 5344:Black Kite 5299:Black Kite 5216:References 4908:GnocchiFan 4890:GnocchiFan 4875:GnocchiFan 4864:GnocchiFan 4811:Met Police 4790:|answered= 4356:|answered= 3746:repeatedly 3415:said or a 3405:Black Kite 3215:Comparing 2902:known. -- 2468:Rod Liddle 2355:GnocchiFan 2341:said that 2269:GnocchiFan 1830:|answered= 1603:|answered= 1520:GnocchiFan 1271:WP:BALANCE 1242:WP:NOTNEWS 791:Birth name 757:Quiz shows 690:Necrothesp 388:Daicaregos 342:Daicaregos 179:Daily Mail 104:Wikiwoohoo 5516:Apache287 4947:outlets. 4596:WP:THESUN 4218:this edit 4037:BBC News' 3783:(and the 3765:does. -- 3712:, or the 3708:, or the 3660:Not just 3496:The Sun's 3438:said. -- 2568:The Times 2473:Newsnight 2390:The Anome 2376:precisely 2293:this edit 1874:Not done: 1682:It's not 1634:Thanks, 1490:8.9.82.32 1471:8.9.82.32 778:talk page 363:The Welsh 296:Who's Who 254:dribblers 229:The Welsh 153:The Welsh 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 5064:question 4748:) says. 4548:secured. 4297:BBC News 4186:BBC News 4103:WP:LIBEL 4044:BBC News 4033:BBC News 4021:BBC News 3875:and the 3847:and the 3728:BBC News 3718:BBC News 3429:BBC News 3421:BBC News 3417:Guardian 3409:BBC News 3349:BBC News 3329:The Sun' 3229:BBC News 3217:The Sun' 2991:anywhere 2850:BBC News 2841:BBC News 2835:You say 2752:BBC News 2681:The Sun' 2492:’s story 2429:illegal" 2062:did that 2005:Sky News 1442:this one 1324:unsigned 1047:unsigned 977:Station1 924:contribs 912:unsigned 780:or in a 711:Station1 432:"cuddly" 316:blue fit 168:Children 122:unsigned 83:unsigned 5452:20 July 5404:The Sun 5364:DeFacto 5311:DeFacto 5193:The Sun 5189:The Sun 5184:DeFacto 5139:DeFacto 5105:images. 5100:DeFacto 5086:DeFacto 5051:DeFacto 5037:DeFacto 5007:Catfish 4990:DeFacto 4952:Catfish 4934:DeFacto 4838:Catfish 4637:The Sun 4600:The Sun 4307:DeCausa 4251:The Sun 4230:DeFacto 4166:The Sun 4150:DeFacto 4130:The Sun 4052:DeFacto 4048:The Sun 4029:The Sun 4025:The Sun 4004:The Sun 3952:DeFacto 3948:The Sun 3920:DeFacto 3898:by the 3882:DeFacto 3831:DeFacto 3810:Here's 3798:DeFacto 3781:The Sun 3779:Ah, so 3767:DeFacto 3763:The Sun 3732:DeFacto 3684:The Sun 3680:The Sun 3666:DeFacto 3662:The Sun 3644:The Sun 3630:DeFacto 3585:The Sun 3519:DeFacto 3515:The Sun 3482:DeFacto 3454:The Sun 3440:DeFacto 3436:The Sun 3425:The Sun 3413:The Sun 3388:The Sun 3360:DeFacto 3356:The Sun 3333:DeFacto 3325:The Sun 3306:helping 3302:The Sun 3267:The Sun 3249:The Sun 3234:DeFacto 3203:DeFacto 3177:The Sun 3173:The Sun 3168:The Sun 3164:The Sun 3150:DeFacto 3137:The Sun 3112:The Sun 3103:The Sun 3090:DeFacto 3058:DeFacto 3009:DeFacto 2988:The Sun 2974:DeFacto 2956:The Sun 2942:DeFacto 2919:The Sun 2904:DeFacto 2881:The Sun 2867:DeFacto 2845:The Sun 2808:DeFacto 2804:The Sun 2786:the Sun 2771:DeFacto 2756:The Sun 2721:DeFacto 2693:DeFacto 2685:The Sun 2654:The Sun 2619:DeFacto 2615:The Sun 2610:The Sun 2586:The Sun 2573:The Sun 2528:The Sun 2520:The Sun 2490:The Sun 2442:The Sun 2438:The Sun 2426:The Sun 2404:The Sun 2347:The Sun 2343:The Sun 2337:said (" 2315:The Sun 2309:The Sun 2301:The Sun 1755:says: " 1722:The Sun 1692:DeFacto 1688:The Sun 1684:The Sun 1657:The Sun 1653:The Sun 1629:The Sun 1389:The Sun 1275:Amakuru 1183:The Sun 1145:Dajanes 1106:SkyNews 796:FreeBMD 753:Support 741:Support 724:Support 703:Support 686:Support 665:Support 367:Buzzard 320:WP:BLPN 248:Maaan, 233:Buzzard 218:"Natch" 157:Buzzard 39:archive 5421:them." 5307:WP:BRD 5280:Xan747 5258:Xan747 5153:Xan747 5135:Xan747 5121:Xan747 5082:Xan747 5068:Xan747 4972:Xan747 4632:WP:BLP 4552:Xan747 4539:WP:BLP 4510:Xan747 4435:Xan747 4405:Xan747 4301:. But 4188:, and 4184:, and 4179:, and 4174:, and 3871:, the 3812:a clue 3710:Mirror 2436:, but 2225:Xan747 2199:TalkTV 2157:Xan747 2121:Xan747 2095:Xan747 2066:Xan747 2009:Xan747 1940:Xan747 1886:Xan747 1792:Xan747 1179:WP:BLP 1173:WP:BLP 1164:zzuuzz 1110:says: 1108:source 1088:Czello 1015:cite: 857:Cyllel 823:trlkly 609:(talk) 285:, and 202:Martin 5326:don't 5309:. -- 5056:: --> 5053:said: 4932:? -- 4794:|ans= 4780:This 4360:|ans= 4350:This 4292:WP:OR 4196:WP:RS 3720:, or 3716:, or 3517:. -- 3431:said. 2313:what 1834:|ans= 1820:This 1690:. -- 1607:|ans= 1593:This 1419:from 582:moved 484:snack 216:say, 16:< 5520:talk 5504:TALK 5470:talk 5454:2023 5368:talk 5315:talk 5284:talk 5262:talk 5204:talk 5157:talk 5143:talk 5125:talk 5090:talk 5072:talk 5041:talk 4994:talk 4976:talk 4938:talk 4912:talk 4898:talk 4879:talk 4868:talk 4823:talk 4813:and 4754:talk 4732:talk 4716:talk 4686:talk 4659:talk 4645:talk 4607:♦Ian 4586:talk 4556:talk 4529:talk 4514:talk 4499:talk 4476:talk 4462:talk 4439:talk 4409:talk 4387:talk 4327:talk 4311:talk 4260:talk 4234:talk 4204:talk 4154:talk 4140:talk 4110:♦Ian 4101:and 4056:talk 4008:very 3970:talk 3956:talk 3938:talk 3924:talk 3910:talk 3886:talk 3849:Mail 3835:talk 3820:talk 3802:talk 3785:Mail 3771:talk 3736:talk 3696:talk 3686:and 3670:talk 3652:talk 3634:talk 3615:talk 3537:talk 3523:talk 3504:talk 3486:talk 3462:talk 3444:talk 3378:talk 3364:talk 3337:talk 3315:talk 3293:here 3275:talk 3257:talk 3238:talk 3207:talk 3184:♦Ian 3154:talk 3119:♦Ian 3094:talk 3080:talk 3062:talk 3013:talk 2999:talk 2978:talk 2964:talk 2946:talk 2928:talk 2908:talk 2890:talk 2871:talk 2827:talk 2812:talk 2794:talk 2775:talk 2760:BBC' 2742:talk 2725:talk 2711:talk 2697:talk 2662:♦Ian 2645:talk 2623:talk 2596:talk 2535:♦Ian 2516:here 2500:talk 2449:♦Ian 2416:talk 2407:here 2394:talk 2359:talk 2324:talk 2303:and 2273:talk 2255:talk 2229:talk 2214:talk 2175:talk 2161:talk 2147:talk 2125:talk 2117:Done 2099:talk 2085:talk 2070:talk 2057:Done 2039:talk 2027:and 2023:The 2013:talk 2003:and 1987:talk 1958:talk 1944:talk 1920:talk 1905:talk 1890:talk 1860:talk 1796:talk 1776:talk 1768:here 1734:talk 1710:talk 1696:talk 1664:♦Ian 1643:talk 1569:talk 1554:talk 1524:talk 1494:talk 1475:talk 1450:talk 1431:talk 1398:talk 1366:talk 1348:talk 1332:talk 1279:talk 1269:and 1255:talk 1251:Anna 1231:talk 1196:talk 1192:Anna 1149:talk 1130:talk 1075:talk 1055:talk 1024:talk 1001:talk 981:talk 966:talk 941:talk 920:talk 882:talk 861:talk 842:talk 807:talk 799:here 745:╠╣uw 732:talk 715:talk 709:. - 705:per 694:talk 677:talk 673:PC78 654:talk 634:talk 604:SITH 584:per 544:talk 523:talk 513:Bias 500:here 492:talk 470:talk 466:DBaK 455:talk 440:talk 436:DBaK 421:talk 417:DBaK 392:talk 383:Done 356:— | 346:talk 328:talk 304:talk 258:know 250:that 222:— | 210:this 191:talk 146:— | 142:knew 140:Huw 130:talk 100:here 91:talk 5418:NYT 5406:". 5370:). 5317:). 5145:). 5092:). 5043:). 5012:Jim 4996:). 4957:Jim 4940:). 4888:Hi 4843:Jim 4792:or 4784:to 4682:Deb 4655:Deb 4358:or 4236:). 4156:). 4058:). 3958:). 3926:). 3888:). 3845:Sun 3837:). 3804:). 3773:). 3738:). 3672:). 3636:). 3625:all 3597:had 3593:Sun 3525:). 3488:). 3446:). 3392:Sun 3366:). 3339:). 3286:in 3271:Deb 3240:). 3209:). 3156:). 3146:you 3096:). 3072:Sun 3064:). 3015:). 2980:). 2948:). 2910:). 2873:). 2814:). 2777:). 2769:-- 2764:BBC 2727:). 2699:). 2633:Sun 2625:). 2565:to 2351:Sun 2335:Sun 2295:by 1832:or 1824:to 1748:In 1706:Deb 1698:). 1605:or 1597:to 1187:Sun 878:Deb 369:| — 235:| — 214:not 159:| — 5522:) 5492:ge 5472:) 5445:. 5433:^ 5286:) 5264:) 5206:) 5159:) 5127:) 5074:) 4978:) 4914:) 4900:) 4881:) 4825:) 4798:no 4756:) 4734:) 4718:) 4688:) 4661:) 4647:) 4614:M♦ 4609:Ma 4588:) 4580:. 4558:) 4531:) 4516:) 4501:) 4478:) 4464:) 4441:) 4411:) 4389:) 4364:no 4329:) 4313:) 4262:) 4206:) 4142:) 4117:M♦ 4112:Ma 3972:) 3940:) 3912:) 3904:? 3822:) 3814:. 3698:) 3654:) 3617:) 3539:) 3506:) 3464:) 3380:) 3317:) 3277:) 3269:. 3259:) 3219:s 3191:M♦ 3186:Ma 3126:M♦ 3121:Ma 3082:) 3001:) 2966:) 2938:OR 2930:) 2900:is 2892:) 2859:, 2853:, 2829:) 2796:) 2744:) 2713:) 2669:M♦ 2664:Ma 2647:) 2598:) 2579:." 2542:M♦ 2537:Ma 2502:) 2494:. 2480:. 2456:M♦ 2451:Ma 2418:) 2396:) 2361:) 2326:) 2275:) 2257:) 2231:) 2216:) 2177:) 2163:) 2149:) 2127:) 2101:) 2087:) 2072:) 2041:) 2015:) 1989:) 1960:) 1946:) 1922:) 1907:) 1892:) 1862:) 1838:no 1798:) 1778:) 1770:. 1736:) 1712:) 1671:M♦ 1666:Ma 1645:) 1637:-- 1611:no 1571:) 1556:) 1526:) 1496:) 1477:) 1452:) 1433:) 1400:) 1392:. 1368:) 1350:) 1334:) 1304:. 1281:) 1248:. 1244:, 1233:) 1210:. 1151:) 1132:) 1077:) 1057:) 1026:) 1003:) 983:) 968:) 943:) 926:) 922:• 884:) 863:) 844:) 809:) 772:. 734:) 717:) 696:) 679:) 656:) 648:. 636:) 624:→ 565:. 546:) 529:) 525:) 494:) 472:) 457:) 442:) 423:) 394:) 386:. 348:) 330:) 306:) 288:. 282:, 267:-- 220:. 200:@ 193:) 182:: 132:) 93:) 5518:( 5498:s 5495:r 5489:g 5486:a 5483:W 5468:( 5456:. 5366:( 5342:@ 5313:( 5297:@ 5282:( 5260:( 5202:( 5155:( 5141:( 5133:@ 5123:( 5098:@ 5088:( 5080:@ 5070:( 5049:@ 5039:( 5025:@ 4992:( 4984:@ 4974:( 4936:( 4924:@ 4910:( 4896:( 4877:( 4866:( 4821:( 4752:( 4730:( 4714:( 4684:( 4657:( 4643:( 4611:c 4584:( 4554:( 4527:( 4512:( 4497:( 4474:( 4460:( 4437:( 4407:( 4385:( 4325:( 4309:( 4258:( 4232:( 4224:. 4202:( 4152:( 4138:( 4114:c 4054:( 3968:( 3954:( 3936:( 3922:( 3908:( 3884:( 3833:( 3818:( 3800:( 3769:( 3734:( 3724:? 3694:( 3668:( 3650:( 3632:( 3613:( 3535:( 3521:( 3502:( 3484:( 3460:( 3442:( 3403:@ 3376:( 3362:( 3335:( 3313:( 3273:( 3255:( 3236:( 3205:( 3188:c 3152:( 3123:c 3092:( 3078:( 3060:( 3011:( 2997:( 2976:( 2962:( 2944:( 2926:( 2906:( 2888:( 2869:( 2862:i 2825:( 2810:( 2792:( 2773:( 2766:. 2740:( 2723:( 2709:( 2695:( 2666:c 2643:( 2621:( 2594:( 2539:c 2498:( 2453:c 2414:( 2392:( 2357:( 2322:( 2271:( 2253:( 2227:( 2212:( 2193:" 2173:( 2159:( 2145:( 2123:( 2097:( 2083:( 2068:( 2037:( 2011:( 1985:( 1956:( 1942:( 1935:. 1918:( 1903:( 1888:( 1858:( 1794:( 1774:( 1732:( 1708:( 1694:( 1668:c 1641:( 1567:( 1552:( 1522:( 1492:( 1473:( 1448:( 1429:( 1396:( 1364:( 1346:( 1330:( 1277:( 1257:) 1253:( 1229:( 1198:) 1194:( 1147:( 1128:( 1073:( 1053:( 1022:( 999:( 979:( 964:( 939:( 918:( 880:( 859:( 840:( 805:( 730:( 713:( 692:( 675:( 652:( 632:( 598:) 594:( 542:( 521:( 490:( 468:( 453:( 438:( 419:( 390:( 360:| 344:( 326:( 302:( 265:? 226:| 189:( 150:| 128:( 89:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index